Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
MT-IOSEA/SS.2/Doc.11.1(Annex 1) DRAFT WHAT CAN BE DONE TO RESTORE PACIFIC TURTLE POPULATIONS? The Bellagio Blueprint for Action on Pacific Sea Turtles 6 January 2004 From 17-22 November 2003, a group of 25 experts met in Bellagio, Italy, to draft a Blueprint for Action on Pacific Sea Turtles. The group recognized the serious state of sea turtle populations in the Pacific and the escalating nature of human threats to the turtles. However, taking a broad view of successful sea turtle conservation cases in other parts of the world and promising policy and management actions in the Pacific, they concluded that actions to save the threatened and endangered species were possible. Consequently, the Bellagio Blueprint for Action on Pacific Sea Turtles is presented here for the first time. The Blueprint urges protecting all nesting beaches, reducing turtle take in at-sea and coastal fisheries, stimulating Pan-Pacific policy actions and encouraging the sustainability of traditional use of sea turtles. In addition to this description of the Blueprint, the Bellagio experts are developing a full policy brief and other products for wide dissemination and, individually, are taking up the actions recommended in forthcoming environment and fisheries policy and management forums. CONTEXT The Pacific Ocean is the habitat of 5 species of widely distributed sea turtles and one restricted to Australian waters that evolved nearly 30 million years ago. All species are long lived, slow growing, take from 10 to 30 years to reach maturity and exhibit complex life cycles involving eggs laid in nests on tropical beaches, natal beach homing and extraordinary feeding and breeding migrations that can span the entire Pacific Ocean. Sea turtle populations are slow to grow and replace themselves. The flesh and eggs of these large marine animals have provided food over centuries for many coastal communities throughout the Pacific islands, along the west coast of the Americas and throughout east Asia and eastern Australia. They also provide ornaments such as those made from the distinctive tortoise shell of the hawksbill and are important in the cultural and social identity of many traditional societies. The long life, wide ranging migrations and value to humans make sea turtles susceptible to many forms of mortality, including direct and incidental takes from coastal and oceanic fishing activities all of which have increased over the last decades. The persistence of 1 these impacts without correction, particularly in combination with traditional extractive uses, has rendered the species increasingly vulnerable to extinction. Consequently all of the 5 widely distributed species in the Pacific have now been registered as endangered (green turtle – Chelonia mydas, olive ridley turtle – Lepidochelys olivacea) or, worse, critically endangered (leatherback turtle – Dermochelys coriacea, loggerhead turtle – Caretta caretta, and the hawksbill turtle – Eretmochelys imbricata). The Pacific leatherback is now the most endangered sea turtle in the world, and loggerheads are also in serious trouble. Some populations are close to extinction, and the Malaysian leatherback population, once one of the most abundant in the world, may have already disappeared. Extirpation of a sea turtle population is generally irreversible because females tend to return to reproduce to the beaches where they are born and therefore it is highly unlikely that lost rookeries will be recolonized by turtles born elsewhere. The restoration of such broad-ranging endangered species will only be accomplished if urgent and coordinated actions across national boundaries are practiced, aimed at critical interventions to mitigate the many threats across the entire Pacific. To address these issues, a unique group of 26 economists, marine life policy experts, fishing industry and fisheries professionals, conservation, sea turtle and natural resource management specialists and development assistance researchers met from 17-21 November 2003 at the Bellagio Conference Center in Italy to create a blueprint for the conservation of sea turtles in the Pacific Ocean. The Blueprint for Action on Pacific Sea Turtles proposed by the Bellagio meeting includes (1) the protection of all nesting beaches, (2) reducing turtle take in at-sea and coastal fisheries, (3) stimulating PanPacific policy actions and (4) encouraging the sustainability of traditional use of sea turtles (see Table 1). Point 1: Protect all nesting beaches, starting with those of the Pacific leatherbacks The Bellagio Blueprint for Action calls for a massive mobilization of effort to protect the 10 remaining leatherback turtle nesting sites around the Pacific from human take, predation and habitat degradation. The 10 beaches are shown in the map. The goal is to protect every nest possible to ensure a maximal hatchling production that can sustain the recovery of depleted populations. The 10 principal leatherback nesting beaches remaining in the Pacific 1. Terrenganu, Malaysia 2. War Mon, Papua-Indonesia 3. Jamursba-Medi, Papua-Indonesia 4. Papua New Guinea 5. Solomon Islands 6. Baja California, Mexico 7. Michoacan, Mexico 8. Guerrero, Mexico 9. Oaxaca, Mexico 10. Las Baulas, Costa Rica Figure 1. Key leatherback nesting beaches remaining in the Pacific 2 (i) Protecting nesting beaches has been proven to work in restoring sea turtle populations a. A good example is that of Kemp’s ridley turtle in the Gulf of Mexico. In the Gulf of Mexico, nesting beach protection was effective at halting the extinction of the Kemp’s ridley, once the most critically endangered sea turtle in the world. A massive effort was mobilized in the 1970’s to protect the last remaining nesting beach by moving all the nests to the safety of a beach hatchery each season. By the late 1980’s, the population began showing signs of recovery, which was further enhanced by elimination of trawling in front of the nesting beaches. This recovery accelerated in the 1990s, after a total ban on sea turtle extraction in Mexico and the use of Turtle Excluder Devices (TEDs) in shrimp trawls in Mexico and United States to protect ridleys from coastal fishery mortality. b. Leatherback turtles nesting in South Africa are also showing signs of recovery. In South Africa, there has been a steady increase in the nesting population of leatherbacks since the 1970s, when beach conservation was begun. The increasing population trend has also occurred throughout the Caribbean as well, due in the first instance to nesting beach protection. (ii) All nesting beaches must be protected, starting with those for leatherbacks and loggerheads a. Leatherback extinction in the Pacific is inevitable if nesting beaches are not protected and, in some cases, restored. A necessary though not sufficient condition for reversing the catastrophic decline in leatherback populations is to protect all nesting beaches so as to maximize the production of eggs. This means halting all take of eggs for direct human consumption, and preventing the predation by pigs and other animals. In beaches where erosion washes away nests, eggs should be moved to safer sites. At beaches where the temperature regime has been altered (e.g. through removing shade trees) careful artificial incubation of the eggs or artificial shading of nests can be used to provide the correct incubation conditions for the temperature-sensitive turtle eggs. Good scientific knowledge is now available on appropriate conditions to avoid artificially biasing the sex ratios of the turtles and these need to be applied widely. b. Because of natal homing, each stock tends to be unique. As populations have become depleted and few are left, all stocks must be protected and this equates to protecting all nesting beaches. Scientists believe that most nesting beaches have been identified and that these should all be recorded and monitored. 3 (iii) Nesting beaches can be protected by engaging local communities, biologists, volunteers, law enforcement, and others in conservation and providing the funds to make this possible: a. A Promising examples of how local people can help protect nesting beaches is in the important but remote leatherback nesting site in Papua Indonesia (Jarmurbsa-Medi). At this site, in the Birdshead area of Papua Indonesia, the World Wildlife Fund (Indonesia) is working with local people to protect nesting sties from predation and from the erosion of natural forces and those of logging in the hinterland. b. Community-based efforts in Kamiali (PNG) to protect nesting beaches are supported by the Western Pacific Fisheries Management Advisory Council of the United States of America (WPFMC). A coastal community in Kamiali, PNG, working in conjunction with, the South Pacific Regional Environmental Programme (SPREP), Kamiali Integrated Conservation Development Group (KICDG) and NOAA Fisheries, is protecting leatherback nesting beaches. This coastal community is protecting eggs from poaching and animal predators, maintaining habitat integrity by preventing the beach from use by commercial logging interests, and participating in research projects aimed to better understand the life history of leatherbacks. c. Funds are also needed to support beach protection. Depending on the circumstances, these funds would be used for land purchase (e.g., a suitable leatherback nesting beach could be purchased in Costa Rica), community development/retraining (ecotourism), comanagement support costs (Mexico, Papua New Guinea), and purchase of logging and other land use concessions and longterm leases (Papua Indonesia). These costs could be financed in part as mitigation of sea turtle mortality from industry and developed nations (e.g. logging, high seas fisheries), and other mechanisms, e.g. by creating a Global Trust Fund. d. Many beach protection plans have not been implemented due to lack of funds. Only 50 percent of the leatherback nesting beaches in Mexico are currently protected and several proposals remain unfounded for Guatemala, Nicaragua and Papua. Point 2: Reduce Turtle Take in At-Sea and Coastal Fisheries The Bellagio Blueprint recognizes that all forms of mortality for Pacific sea turtles will need to be drastically reduced, not just egg mortality on nesting beaches. Turtles suffer significant but poorly quantified mortality from coastal and at-sea fisheries. Pacific sea turtles are migratory, weaving their way across the Pacific Ocean, in and out of Exclusive Economic Zones and the high seas. Breeding habitat can lie in one nation and their developing and foraging habitat in another nation’s waters or in the high seas, where there is no inherent governance. In their journey, turtles must run a gauntlet of 4 fishing fleets on both the high seas and coastal waters. Sea turtles interact with pelagic longline gear on the high seas, and beach seine, gillnet and shrimp trawl gears in coastal waters. These interactions can lead to death, most frequently through drowning, when the turtles cannot climb to the surface of the ocean to breathe after becoming hooked or entangled in the fishing gear. New types of gear or ways of fishing can significantly reduce the rate of interactions between turtles and gear or the mortality rate after an interaction has already occurred. (i) Fishing mortality can be reduced by new technologies, as demonstrated by the use of turtle excluder devices (TEDS) on trawl nets and circle hooks and bait on long lines Technology standards, when combined with reductions in turtle mortality from other sources, such as through nesting site protection, can contribute to recovery of sea turtle populations. In contrast to many types of regulations, technology standards are comparatively easy to achieve compliance through monitoring and verification, since only a relatively quick inspection is required. New technologies to reduce sea turtle takes from fishing also permit the creativity of fishers to have full play. When consistently applied, they also have the potential to restructure the incentives for nations in such a way that both compliance and participation in this conservation initiative increase. The potential for increased participation (and hence reduction in free riding) in the conservation initiative, along with increased compliance, could even lead to reductions in sea turtle mortality that outweigh other conservation approaches that on paper may appear to be more effective, but in practice are not, due to problems of compliance, participation, and free riding on others’ conservation. Adoption of these technology standards does not preclude adoption of other conservation initiatives, and in addition, research and extension programs can continue to refine and implement these technology standards. a. In coastal shrimp fisheries, turtle excluder devices or “TEDS” are a grid and trapdoor installed inside a trawling net that while allowing shrimp to pass to the back of the net, direct sea turtles out and thereby reduce sea turtle bycatch by up to 97 percent. b. In pelagic longline fisheries, exciting new developments in gear and fishing methods in the Atlantic Ocean entailing 18/0 circle hooks and mackerel bait have been found to significantly reduce both the loggerhead and leatherback interactions when compared to the industry standard J hooks and squid bait. In addition, circle hooks significantly reduced the rate of hook ingestion by the loggerheads, thereby reducing the post-hooking mortality associated with interactions. The combination of 18/0 circle hooks and mackerel bait was found to be the most effective mitigation measure for both loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles. Mackerel bait was found to be more efficient for swordfish than squid bait and circle hooks were more efficient for tuna than J hooks. In addition, after hooking by pelagic line gear, line cutters can reduce turtle mortality by allowing 5 the turtle to swim away rather than bring the turtle on board the vessel and increasing the chance of mortality or injury. (ii) Better understanding of links between turtles and fisheries: Better understanding the links between sea turtles and fisheries allows the design of conservation initiatives that reduce their interactions and thereby sea turtle mortality. Better understanding of these links leads, in part, to designing fishing gear, management practices and methods of fishing that reduce the takes and mortality of sea turtles. a. Longline set depths can be critical to incidental sea turtle mortality. The depth at which longline gear are set and the length of leaders for individual hook lines from the main line affect both the takes and mortality of sea turtles. Shallower sets of longline gear are more likely to bring interactions between the turtles and the gear, since turtles are more likely to swim higher in the water column. Longer leaders can reduce sea turtle mortality once a turtle has been hooked or entangled in a leader, since the turtle can reach the surface to breathe. b. Wongara Beach marine park (Australia) fisheries closures at times that coincide with loggerhead nesting are found to be effective. By better understanding the months and locations of loggerhead nesting sites in eastern Australia, Australia was able to establish seasonal fisheries closures for the Wongara Beach marine park. This prohibition of fishing in the nesting season and waters off nesting beaches prevented takes and subsequent fisheries-related mortality of loggerhead sea turtles. c. Sea turtle protection from coastal fisheries could be much more effective if the current major knowledge gaps regarding turtle take by coastal fishing gear were addressed. Little is known about the extent of sea turtle takes by coastal fishing gear, especially in the waters of developing nations, where most of the sea turtle nesting sites are located. The magnitude and severity of the sea turtle mortality is unknown, although it is believed to be a major source. Without better knowledge and understanding of the turtle takes by coastal fishing gear, fully effective sea turtle conservation initiatives are difficult to design. (iii) Promote a broad set of sea turtle conservation initiatives to mitigate all sources of fisheries-related turtle mortality a. USA Pacific coast fishermen have adopted a beach to protect nesting sites. Pelagic longline fishermen, working with a conservation group ASUPMATOMA (Asociacion Sudcaliforniana de Proteccion al Medio Ambiente y la Tortuga Marina), are in the process of adopting a nesting beach for leatherback sea turtles in Baja California, Mexico. Fishermen are providing funding to allow the conservation group, working in conjunction with Mexican authorities and local communities, to secure the eggs and nesting female leatherbacks from poachers and animal predators and to protect and improve 6 nesting habitat, thereby increasing the success and survivor rate of egg laying and hatchings. Point 3: Establish Pan-Pacific policy actions The latest scientific understanding of sea turtle migratory patterns and genetic stock structure shows the extensive geographic scope needed for their development. Sea turtles do not recognize the borders of different nations. Their breeding habitat may lie in one nation while another nation and the high seas may support important foraging habitats for the sea turtles. These features underline the critical importance of an integrated framework for Pan-Pacific policy actions in addressing sea turtle conservation challenges. The Bellagio Blueprint for Action proposes three critical priorities for establishing Pan-Pacific policy actions. (i) Existing regional and international agreements must be strengthened to better reflect the urgent needs for sea turtle conservation a. The Pacific already has a number of existing agreements that possess or have the potential to carry out many of the conservation and management programs and activities that are considered vital to achieving the agreed recovery objectives (see Table 2 and 3). The Bellagio Blueprint for Action emphasizes the critical need to further strengthen the Inter American Convention and Indian Ocean and South East Asia MOU agreements where dedicated sea turtle conservation and protection agreements have been incorporated. IAC – The Inter-American Convention for the Protection and Conservation of Sea Turtles is in the early stages of development. It currently has an interim secretariat and no source of secure funding. For long-term stability and maximum effectiveness the Parties to the IAC are encouraged to develop a permanent secretariat and consistent funding. The advisory bodies are currently not constituted. The Parties are encouraged to constitute and convene those subsidiary organizations in order for them to begin their work. The IAC currently does not include national participation representing some of the key habitat and fishing countries from the Pacific coast of the Americas, and such countries, including Panama, Chile, and Colombia, should join the Convention as soon as possible. The interim secretariat and the Parties themselves are encouraged to seek the adherence of these priority countries. IOSEA MOU – Indian Ocean and South East Asia Memorandum of Understanding on the Conservation and Management of Marine Turtles and their Habitats under the Convention on Migratory Species - has a developed and comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CMP) and an established secretariat financed through voluntary funding. The secretariat and signatories are encouraged to seek secure and long-term sources of funding to assist with the implementation of the CMP, and to consider the strengthening of the administrative capacities of the secretariat. Key countries of the region that are not yet signatories to the MOU, 7 including those with critical sea turtle habitats and populations such as Malaysia, Indonesia and Papua New Guinea, are encouraged to become signatories. The Signatories may consider the advantages and disadvantages of transforming the MOU to a legally-binding instrument, including the prospects for attracting new members, provision of financial security, and enhancing government commitment, among others. b. The Bellagio Blueprint for Action on Pacific Sea Turtles emphasizes the valuable potential that exists within Regional Fisheries Management organizations such as the Inter American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) and the new Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Council (WCPFC) to develop a capacity and facilitate the advancement of effective programs to reduce fisheries-related sea turtle bycatch and mortality IATTC – The IATTC has fisheries management authority for the eastern tropical Pacific, and has begun to address sea turtle bycatch issues through resolutions and a Bycatch Working Group, though there has not been systematic collection of sea turtle interaction data from the longline fisheries under the jurisdiction of the Commission. The IATTC is encouraged to establish comprehensive data collection programs to contribute to the development of a more accurate assessment of the scope of interactions in the eastern Pacific. The IATTC and its members are also encouraged to seek the adherence or cooperation of key coastal countries and distant water fishing fleets such as Colombia, Chile, China, Korea, and Taiwan. Ratification and entry into force of the new IATTC Convention is also encouraged. WCPFC – The WCPFC has not yet entered into force, though when that occurs it will have fisheries conservation and management responsibility for a large portion of the western and south Pacific. Once the Convention enters into force, the Commission is encouraged to take up sea turtle bycatch management and mitigation issues as soon as possible, including data collection on sea turtle/fisheries interactions, and to promote the adherence of the key fishing and coastal countries. (ii) Developing and enhancing new coordination arrangements among the regional instruments. a. The western/central/south Pacific Island areas lack the comprehensive geographic and conservation programmatic coverage of the rest of the Pacific. Consideration should be given to adopting such an arrangement for this region, along the lines of the model of the IOSEA MOU/CMP. This can be achieved through the extension and further development of the IOSEA MOU, taking account of identified Pacific needs, with subregional coordination provided through the South Pacific Regional Environment Program (SPREP), or the development of a new arrangement drawing on the Conservation and Management Plan of the IOSEA MOU. 8 b. In addition, coordination of regional and sub-regional work programs across the relevant regional organizations is necessary to most efficiently utilize available resources, avoid duplication of effort, and promote consistency. The key organizations identified above, through their respective memberships, should consider the establishment of a formal, functional and charter- or MOU-based body that can exchange information, coordinate activities, and discuss priorities based on the model of the Council of Regional Organizations in the Pacific (CROP). CROP – The CROP is a working arrangement between the regional intergovernmental organisations serving the Pacific Islands Forum and the Pacific Community nations and territories. The permanent secretariat of CROP is the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat, and sectoral working groups are usually chaired in rotation. The CROP Marine Sector Working Group consists of Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat (PIFS), SPREP, Secretariat for the Pacific Community, Forum Fisheries Agency, University of the South Pacific and the South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission (SOPAC), and includes various other organisations and non government organisations in its sessions, including the World Wildlife Fund. Within the CROP system SPREP is the lead agency for turtle conservation, but other agencies play significant roles particularly with regard to the management of fisheries, the reduction of bycatch, marine survey, data-collection and research and the institution of ecosystembased and socially-appropriate management plans. SPREP is encouraged to extend its capacity to act as regional lead-agency in turtle conservation, with the full involvement of other CROP organisations according to their respective mandates and capacity. The CROP Marine Sector Working Group is encouraged to further define the actions that might be possible by each constituent agency and organization towards the conservation of leatherback sea turtles in the Pacific, and to establish links with other regions critical to the Pacific leatherback population, particularly in the Eastern Pacific and Southeast Asia. (iii) Developing a new Pacific Island areas conservation and management plans along the lines of the IOSEA MOU. a. The Pacific Island countries could consider adopting a new sea turtle conservation and protection arrangement for this region, along the lines of the model of the IOSEA MOU/CMP as the most comprehensive method to accomplish long-term sea turtle conservation and management in the western and south Pacific. The relevant countries are encouraged to explore how this objective might be achieved through the extension and further development of the IOSEA MOU, taking account of identified Pacific needs, with sub-regional coordination provided through SPREP, or the development of a new arrangement drawing on the Conservation and Management Plan of the IOSEA MOU. b. The members of the IAC, IATTC, WCPFC, IOSEA MOU and SPREP (and/or any new arrangement in the south Pacific) are encouraged to consider and agree to authorize their respective secretariats or 9 coordinating authorities to develop the envisioned coordinating body, including to elaborate its functions, and to convene a meeting of the body as soon as possible to begin its work. ______________________________________________________________ Point 4: Encourage sustainability in traditional use Sea Turtles are part of the traditional diet and culture of coastal and island communities throughout the central and western Pacific. Gathering of turtle eggs and hunting of sea turtles for meat are an integral part of many local life styles. Hence, regulation or prohibition on sea turtle harvest or substitution of sea turtles with other forms of food must be seen from the perspective of local food security and sustainable use of resources in addition to conserving sea turtles by reducing of sea turtle mortality as bycatch from high sea fishing. An important 4th part of the Bellagio Blueprint for Action is to take steps to ensure that traditional uses are sustainable. (i) It is essential to develop a better understanding of the traditional uses in the central and western Pacific in order to build a capacity for sustainability in uses. a. Social and anthropological information as well as biological and fishing information should be collected from coastal and island communities dependent on seas turtle harvesting to gain a better understanding of the patterns of use. b. Link all available knowledge of turtle biology and use, including migration studies, genetics and fisheries, as well as from traditional community-based knowledge. c. Document the extent of egg harvest and hunting by local communities in the central and western Pacific and correlate to stock conservation status. (ii) Reduce turtle mortality from traditional harvests since indiscriminate harvest of eggs and nesting females over generations has contributed to a drastic decline in the population of sea turtles. The current mortality from traditional harvesting far outweighs the levels that sea turtle populations can sustain and therefore recovery is jeopardized. a. The cooperation and support of the communities that depend on sea turtle harvests are keys to conservation and sustainable management of sea turtles. More can be achieved by working with communities that hunt leatherbacks traditionally in Kei Islands (Indonesia). Community involvement is also essential in reducing egg harvest. There is demonstrated evidence of management success through communitybased initiatives. Although socio-cultural factors and institutional arrangements surrounding the use of common property resources such as sea turtles and their habitats vary from country to country, and region to region, the Jarmurbsa Medi (Papua, Indonesia) case demonstrated that egg poaching can be eliminated by community beach monitoring 10 (iii) Community-based management and co-management arrangements for nesting beach conservation must be cast within the legal and institutional framework governing access and use of resources at sites that are important sea turtle habitats a. Customary and communal use rights of coastal beaches and adjacent land and waters and their resources should be recognized. b. Education and awareness programs on sustainable harvest, and assistance to alternative livelihoods are critical to successful conservation program. c. Community based conservation and management of nesting beaches and sea turtle hunting need to be linked with side payments and compensation programs, including support from developed countries to offset for by-catch mortality in high sea and coastal fisheries. d. Beaches need to be protected from commercial interests such as tourism and logging impact as well as from predators. These will require participation of multiple stakeholders and integrated management of coastal activities to optimize values and benefits for multiple stakeholders (both use and non-use values). NEXT STEPS In addition to the dissemination of the general report of the Bellagio Conference, participants, secretariats and national governments are urged to take every opportunity to immediately deliver these messages to the relevant organizations and countries directly and through scheduled meetings of the existing organizations. Such meetings include the meeting of the IATTC Bycatch Working Group in January 2004, the Pacific Island Regional Oceans Forum in February 2004, the International Sea Turtle Symposium in February 2004, the Meeting of the Signatories to the IOSEA MOU in March 2004, the Conference of Parties to the IAC in August 2004, the FAO Technical Consultation on Sea Turtle Conservation in March 2004, and the meeting of the prepcon for WCPFC in 2004. 11 1. Nesting Beaches Protection and Management Protection of Nests and Nesting Females Eastern Pacific: (i) Hiring personnel for enforcement (ii) Land management (iii) Land acquisition by alternative means (Costa Rica) (iv) Community based conservation and co-management (Mexico & C America) Western Pacific (Papua Indonesia, PNG, Solomon Island) (i) Nest protection, predator control (ii) Land management (iii) Community based conservation and co-management 2. Sustainable Harvesting (i) Regulate Traditional Hunting through community-based harvest management (ii) Undertake education and awareness programs (iii) Support developing alternative economic and foods of people dependent on sea turtle harvesting 3. Reducing Mortalities from By-catch (I) Long line fishing (i) Implement gear modification and mitigation measures (ii) Undertake education and awareness programs for fishers (iii) Engage fishing sector in: (a) Innovation and diffusion of gear modification (b) Establishment of technology standards to eliminate/reduce by-catch (iv) Establish international team to develop and disseminate technology standards (technology transfer) Global Regional Local DRAFT ACTION PLANS National Table 1: Draft Action Plans IATTC CMS/IOS WCPFC including EA MOU AIDCP SPREP (CROP) IAC Notes X 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 12 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 alternative livelihoods fishing organizations National Regional 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 4) Implement time/area closure of near-shore fisheries that takes sea turtles (eg. gillnets, trawls) off nesting beaches during nesting season. 5) Designate areas above and off nesting beaches as protected areas. 6) Establish programs to reduce fishing capacity and support alternative livelihoods for displaced coastal fishers[1] 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 7) Conservation initiatives to offset all sources of fisheries-related turtle mortality in shrimp trawling OTHER ACTIONS 1. Establish a Global Trust Fund or similar mechanism to Support International National and Local Initiatives 2. Financial assistance by developed to developing countries through side payments 3. Undertake further research to: (i) Fill information gaps (ii) Accelerate development and transfer of by-catch reduction technologies (iii) Identify cost-effective solutions to reducing sea turtle mortality and reducing poor peoples dependence on sea turtles and their habitats. 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 3 3 2 1 1 2 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3. Identify responsible agencies at all levels (international, national and local) for supporting and facilitating various actions including dealing with legal, institutionaland socioeconomic issues. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 13 Global Local (v) Explore property rights options including tradable quotas, caps and buy-back programs (vi) Conservation initiatives to offset fisheries-related turtle mortality (II) Coastal Fisheries 1) Undertake a rapid assessment of coastal fisheries that affect sea turtles 2) Undertake education and awareness programs for coastal fishers 3) Improve coastal fisheries statistical system to include both catch and by-catch DRAFT ACTION PLANS 1 (FAO) IATTC CMS/IOS WCPFC including EA MOU AIDCP SPREP (CROP) IAC 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 2 2 Notes Regional 1 1 1 1 Key: 1 = Primary, 2 = Secondary, 3= Tertiary [1] in cash economies most fishers are poor TO ADD: consider translocation of leatherback eggs to recover rookeries 14 Global National Institutions - Agreements 1. Strengthen Existing Agreements/Institutions 2. Explore New Conservation and Coordination Arrangements Local DRAFT ACTION PLANS IATTC CMS/IOS WCPFC including EA MOU AIDCP 1 1 1 1 1 1 SPREP (CROP) IAC 1 1 1 1 Notes CMS/IOSEA MOU on the Conservation and Management of Marine Turtles and their Habitats) IATTC (Inter-American Regional fisheries Threat abatement (marine) Habitat Protection Community Based Conservati on Scientific research and exchange Public awareness, education, capacity building Regional Coordinati on Participatin g Pacific Countries Nonmembers IAC (Inter-American Convention for the turtle Protection and Conservation of Sea Turtles) Threat abatement (terrestrial) INSTRUME NTS/ AGENCY Focus of instrument /agency Geographi cal Scale Table 2: Comprehensive List of Instruments/Agencies X X X X X X X CR, EC, GT, MX,PER,US, HO ES, NI, PA, CL, CO, CAN X X X X X X X PNG, ID, FR, AU, PH, US, MAL,TH, SG, CN VT, CAM, (priority in terms of habitat) US, PM, JP, FR, NI, CR, CL, CN, CO, TW, ES, GT, MX, KOR EC, PER, VAN, EU (ESP) X X X X X X X X FFA (Forum Fisheries Agency) P X X ISC (Interim Scientific Committee) CCSBT (Convention for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna) P Tropical Tuna Commission) WCPFC (Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission) P P 15 P 2004 14 island countries & AU, NZ US, CAN, JP, TW, MX, CN, KOR AU,JP, NZ,KOR, TW 2004 - - ID IOTC (Indian Ocean Tuna Commission) SPC (Secretariat for the Pacific Community) SPREP (South Pacific Regional Environment Programme) PICES (Convention for a North Pacific Marine Science Organization) PEMSEA- Partnerships in Environmental Management for the Seas of East Asia UNEP Regional Seas South Asia, North Pacific CITES (Convention on turtle International Trade in Endangered Species) other CMS (Convention on Migratory Species- GLOBAL CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity) Code of conduct for fisheries responsible fisheries (FAO) X P X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X KOR, JP, AU, CN 14 island countries & AU, NZ, US and French Territories 14 island countries & AU, NZ, US and French Territories TW - - P X X P X X X P X P X X X P P = Potential 16 X X P From web X CL, PER, PA, PH, AU, NZ, FR, JP, CN, US, PNG, ID, MAL, TH, VAN Notes: (DRAFT) Non-members (underlined priority countries) Time frame for adaptation Mandate for developing relations with other bodies Existence of secretariat or coordinating & advisory body Funding sources Actual membership (Pacific countries only) Geographic scope Species coverage Thematic coverage INSTRUMENTS /AGENCY Focus of instrument /agency Geographical Scale Table 3: Key Instruments/Agencies IAC (InterEstablish No American predictable Land areas of permanent Mandate Convention funding and Covers full Americas, waters CR, EC, secretariat exist (through Amendment for the ES, NI, All strengthen range of under GT, yet, 2 resolution), and REGIONAL turtle Protection PA, CL, infrastructure & except Voluntary conservation jurisdication, flag MX,PER, advisory no ratification and CO, CAN flatback secretariat, issues vessels on US,HO bodies not mechanisms (lengthy). Conservatio encourage highseas yet yet. n of Sea participation of constituted. Turtles) priority countries Additional resources (financial and personnel) required. CMS/IOSEA Consider PNG, ID, MOU on the Relatively pros/cons of FR, Voluntary Explicit Conservatio Indian Ocean, Secretariat expeditious transforming the MAL,TH, Covers full , multiple requirement n and South East Asia AU, PH, and by MOU to a legallySG, CN range of donors of MOU, Management All and adjacent US, VT, advisory concensus, binding (priority conservation (financial mehcanisms of Marine seas East to CAM body no instrument (eg. In in terms issues and inunder Turtles and Torres Strait constituted. subsequent terms of ability to of kind) development. their ratification. attract new habitat) Habitats) members, provide for financial security, and enhance government commitment). 17 IATTC (InterAmerican Tropical Tuna By-catch (by Eastern Commission) interpretation Tropical including and Pacific AIDCP fisheries resolution) Unlimited including (Agreement and coastal on ecosystem waters and International management. highseas. Dolphin Conservation Program) Western and Central WCPFC Pacific, (Western and By-catch and waters under Central Pacific ecosystem All national Fisheries management. jurisdiction Commission) and highseas. other US, PM, Permanent JP, FR, NI, Amendment National secretariat Mandate CR, ES, and assessments and exist in the GT,MX, ratification obligatory. scientific convention. EC, PER, (lengthy). staff. VAN CL, Widen CN, membership, CO, extend and improve TW, data coverage KOR National assessments, Permanent voluntary Amendment secretariat Mandate contribution, and and exist in the special funds ratification scientific convention for (lengthy). staff. developing countries. Consider all measures to collect data and mitigate 2004 by-catch. Take up by-catch measures as soon as possible Potential members: All coastal states and DWFN. Defined by SPREP (South membership 14 island Covers full Pacific (terrestrial countries & Assess and range of All except Permanent Regional and marine AU, NZ, US voluntary conservation flatback secretariat. Environment areas under and French contribution issues Programme) national Territories jurisdiction) 18 Potential capacity Program flexible, convention requires amendment and ratification. - Turtle program is not based on legal obligation formalize and extend to incorporate additional conservation competence. Consider all measures to collect data and mitigate by-catch. GLOBAL CMS Covers full (Convention range of on Migratory conservation Speciesissues All Terrestrial and marine areas under national jurisdiction of its members and flag vessels on highseas. CL, PE, PA, PH, AU, NZ, FR, 19 National assessments, Permanent voluntary secretariat contribution, and 2 special funds advisory for bodies. developing countries. Multiple MOUs in place (CBD, Ramsar and CITES). Amendment and ratification (lengthy). JP, Widen CN, membership, US, elaborate MOU with PNG, SPREP, enhancing ID, involvement of MAL, national bodies TH, responsible for VAN fisheries.